Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRADE UNION OF THE POLICE IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRADE UNION OF THE POLICE IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35 MRK
  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, § 42, ECHR 2002-V; Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey, no. 28602/95, §§ 28-29, ECHR 2006-II; Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 109, ECHR 2008; Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, §§ 56 and 76; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-III; or Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, §§ 70 and 71, ECHR 2008.
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98

  GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  It reiterates that the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them, as secured by Article 10, is one of the objectives of freedom of association as enshrined in Article 11 (see Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 37, Series A no. 202; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 91, ECHR 2004-I; or Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 27, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 30668/96

  WILSON, NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, § 42, ECHR 2002-V; Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey, no. 28602/95, §§ 28-29, ECHR 2006-II; Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 109, ECHR 2008; Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, §§ 56 and 76; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-III; or Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, §§ 70 and 71, ECHR 2008.

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 22723/93

  YAZAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11 and, moreover, that they based their decisions or actions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, for example, Yazar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 22723/93, 22724/93 and 22725/93, § 51, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that Article 11 takes precedence as the lex specialis for the freedom of association and it will deal with the case principally under this provision, whilst interpreting it in the light of Article 10 (see also Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 33, 21 June 2007; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 23, 23 October 2008; and, to the contrary, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 52, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05

  BARRACO c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  It reiterates that the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them, as secured by Article 10, is one of the objectives of freedom of association as enshrined in Article 11 (see Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 37, Series A no. 202; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 91, ECHR 2004-I; or Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 27, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that Article 11 takes precedence as the lex specialis for the freedom of association and it will deal with the case principally under this provision, whilst interpreting it in the light of Article 10 (see also Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 33, 21 June 2007; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 23, 23 October 2008; and, to the contrary, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 52, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06

  STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 11828/08

  20271/06 and 17517/07, §§ 71-75, 23 November 2010).

• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 59402/14

  STRAUME v. LATVIA

  The protection of personal opinions, as secured by Article 10, is one of the objectives of freedom of assembly and association, as enshrined in Article 11 (see Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 37, Series A no. 202; Palomo Sánchez and Others, § 52, cited above; Trade Union of the Police in the Slovak Republic and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11828/08, § 51, 25 September 2012; and Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, §§ 99-101, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 976/20

  HOPPEN AND TRADE UNION OF AB AMBER GRID EMPLOYEES v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously acknowledged that a lack of protection for employees from discrimination by the employer on the grounds of their trade union activities could have a chilling effect and discourage other persons from joining that trade union, which could in turn lead to its disappearance (see Wilson, National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 30668/96 and 2 others, § 47, ECHR 2002-V; Danilenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 67336/01, § 135, ECHR 2009 (extracts); and Trade Union of the Police in the Slovak Republic and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11828/08, §§ 60-61, 25 September 2012).